Jump to content

intextrovert

Members
  • Posts

    237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by intextrovert

  1. I LOVE Rome! It's so good. But it gets so dark in the second season, after Julius is gone. Seeds of the fall of Rome and all, but it's depressing as hell to watch. Also, j'adore the Apollinaire poem in your signature.
  2. I disagree. I think it's showing that "teachable" characteristic in a more tangible way. Even with great teachers, the student has to be receptive to criticism to turn things around. S/he says that he is, so I think that's all s/he was trying to show.
  3. I've heard that good letters of recommendation also include mention of the applicant's weaknesses, or else they don't seem credible. There's LoR inflation just like grade inflation, and when you're getting tons of very positive letters, getting one from a prof that really seems to know the student can make it stand out. Obviously, the weaknesses mentioned shouldn't be serious ones, but none of those you mention fall into that category. Mostly the letter seems to say you've overcome or outgrown your weaknesses - so that's a good thing! Don't worry. Adcoms know you're not a perfect being. Seems like a great letter. And I wish my writers had offered to let me read their recs for me!
  4. (And oops, my reply inadvertently preserved the original version that you later edited, for all of internet time - sorry!)
  5. Yes, and I didn't mean to imply I thought that - like I said before, I wouldn't be going in order to influence their decision or to get in since I don't think that would work, but because I want to experience all those things you can't really get a sense of without doing a full visit: hear what they have to say, see classes, meet the people who might be there next fall and are there now, continue that "dialogue" you talked about. And yes, I also started that dialogue prior to applying as well. And those conversations are a big part of the reason it's my top choice. Hopeful agony: check yes.
  6. Hey, congrats on getting in off the Northwestern waitlist! That's great news. I've been told that often, especially at programs with unranked or loosely-ranked waitlists, you can "move up" if you express serious interest/indicate that you are likely to attend (which, of course, you should not do unless it's actually true!). Going there indicates you're serious about the program, so it can't hurt in that respect. And thanks for sharing your experience with it, pamphilia. It's good to know that a visit can help. I'm still a little unsure about the awkward factor/looking pushy at the visiting weekend, but they just offer a lot during that time that you can't get if you just visit the department on your own (which I've already done anyway, although classes were not in session). I think I'll probably end up going, but be as relaxed about it as possible while I'm there so I don't look crazy...
  7. I'm also waitlisted since February 3, at my current top choice. The DGS is really wonderful and attentive, and we've emailed a few times since and talked on the phone once. I'm also sort of at a loss to figure out what to do now (if anything!). One question I have for my fellow waitlisters: are any of you going to try to go to the visiting weekends of the schools you're waitlisted at? Of course it would be on my own dime, but I think it would just be so incredibly valuable to go in the event that I do eventually get an offer. The DGS told that it would be fine to do, and I'm planning to, but I just started doubting it - would it look pushy? I really wouldn't be going to influence their decision one way or another - I doubt that would work. I just genuinely want to hear what they have to say, meet the potential cohort and some of the faculty, see a class or two, etc. I think I'd really regret not going if I did end up getting in, but I'm worried about the awkward factor. Thoughts?
  8. The rejections this morning posted all seem to have gotten an email that directed them to the website. I didn't get the email, but I'm curious what website it is - is it just the submitted application on the Apply Yourself site? Would it be posted by the application status that says "incomplete" (right below the warning that all applications will have "incomplete" on them, even though I know mine is complete - weird)? There are also no messages in the message center. Is that where it would be, or am I missing something? I just ask because other Apply Yourself applications had separate grad school status check sites. Wow, super nervous. Are y'all still waiting as well? This notification system seems a bit kooky.
  9. Hey, Ecce, congrats! I actually think people posting that were accepted sometimes brings the stress down a little. It's good to know that the "Accepted" on the results page is an actual person who's psyched about the program. I mean hell yeah, waiting for decisions is stressful, but it's kind of nice to be able to be happy for the ones who got it, even as I'm sitting in the dark. UVa is indeed awesome, and I'm glad you celebrated. What do you study? Who knows about their notification pattern - it seems super erratic, so I don't know whether to give up hope yet. I don't suppose they gave you any info about number of admits, whether they're done notifying, or intended cohort size? Seriously, though, congratulations!
  10. I can't figure it out. There have been 3 acceptances on the results page, which doesn't seem like a lot, but I looked through last year's results and there were only 3 before they sent out waitlists in early March, and then one more acceptance off the waitlist on April 15. I thought there were some in mid-March, but then I realized those were Master's accpetances, not PhD. So I'm not optimistic - I think waitlist may be the best we can hope for at this point. Of course I don't know for sure, but I think that's the most likely. Sad!
  11. Glad to help. Well, when I emailed profs I had some questions about the program - for example, at one place I said I admired the prof's work, especially the interdisciplinary approach she used in her last book, and then I asked about opportunities for interdisciplinary study while in the program. I generally told them that I was very interested in their research, told them my own interests very briefly, and asked about how well that sort of research would be supported by the department, including other faculty whose work I might want to look into. One place was very responsive, the prof offered to speak on the phone and forwarded my email to the DGS, and we corresponded throughout the fall. I got a much better sense of the program through that interaction. Another was cordial and said she'd love to work with me, gave me a little info about a book, a symposium, and one of their interdisciplinary departments, and wished me luck, so that was that. Yet another told me in so many words that I wasn't really a good fit and that they were cutting back on the number of 20th century people they were admitting, so I ended up not applying there. Still, though, all three acceptances are from places where I contacted no one at all. I felt at the time like I really should contact people beforehand, but it's just not the case - it's not like the sciences where you're applying to work with an advisor. If you don't genuinely have questions, I really don't think it will hurt you at all not to contact anyone. And some cranky profs may find it irritating if you don't have truly relevant questions. As far as fit, yes, I mostly scoured websites and C.V.s, then got my hands on a few publications that interested me the most by faculty who seemed like the best fits. But you should also look for things like special collections in the library, groups and programs within the department, affiliated departments...faculty fit is the big thing, though.
  12. Glad to help. Well, when I emailed profs I had some questions about the program - for example, at one place I said I admired the prof's work, especially the interdisciplinary approach she used in her last book, and then I asked about opportunities for interdisciplinary study while in the program. I generally told them that I was very interested in their research, told them my own interests very briefly, and asked about how well that sort of research would be supported by the department, including other faculty whose work I might want to look into. One place was very responsive, the prof offered to speak on the phone and forwarded my email to the DGS, and we corresponded throughout the fall. I got a much better sense of the program through that interaction. Another was cordial and said she'd love to work with me, gave me a little info about a book, a symposium, and one of their interdisciplinary departments, and wished me luck, so that was that. Yet another told me in so many words that I wasn't really a good fit and that they were cutting back on the number of 20th century people they were admitting, so I ended up not applying there. Still, though, all three acceptances are from places where I contacted no one at all. I felt at the time like I really should contact people beforehand, but it's just not the case - it's not like the sciences where you're applying to work with an advisor. If you don't genuinely have questions, I really don't think it will hurt you at all not to contact anyone. And some cranky profs may find it irritating if you don't have truly relevant questions. As far as fit, yes, I mostly scoured websites and C.V.s, then got my hands on a few publications that interested me the most by who seemed like the best fits. But you should also look for things like special collections in the library, groups and programs within the department, affiliated departments...faculty fit is the big thing, though.
  13. Hi there! I put in seven applications two years ago and got straight rejections (with one a waitlist and then rejection). This season has been much more successful - I mean, it's not like I've gotten into every school I wanted, but I've gotten into two I'm really excited about (one of which rejected me last time), waitlisted at another sort of dream program (where I was also rejected last time) and five haven't notified. One big thing I did before was post a question to this forum, very much like the one you just posted! I was soliciting advice, putting out theories about why I did poorly to be either confirmed or refuted. I didn't find any grad school communities until after my first round of applications, and I really attribute a lot of my success to the advice I've gotten. I was so completely overwhelmed by some of the responses I got from very knowledgable people willing to offer support and extensive, nuanced advice to a stranger on the internet. These forums and others have been completely invaluable, and also make you feel warm and fuzzy about the potential of collegiality. After that first post, I suddenly felt I had direction. Obviously, you have to do the work, and be open to the fact that it might involve real work, but people here can tell you what that work is. So I'll tell you what I did, in accordance with the advice I got: I think the big thing for me was my statement of purpose. But it wasn't just a matter of writing a better essay, but the focus and perspective I've gained in the two years that made it into the essay. Two years ago, I couldn't have written the SoP I wrote this year. Not that it was amazing, but just that it had clarity, consistency, and showed that I had specific things I wanted to research. I figured out more about exactly what I wanted to study, the direction of my research. I read up a bit on the work being done in my subfield so I'm aware of general directions people are taking it in, which I started doing by browsing journals related to my subfield, and scanning through a few books that seemed to reappear. I read other successful SoPs, both on this and related communities, as well as ones I solicited from friends in grad school. That was huge in figuring out possible ways to structure, what to include, what the goals should be. I had retaken the GRE before my first round, and realized that was a ridiculous rookie mistake. I had scores that were plenty good enough the first time, but I thought bringing them up to perfect would make the difference (ah, the college admissions model). Well, my resulting pretty "perfect" scores got me rejected everywhere, and as I used the same scores this time around with very different results, I know that's not what it's about. Unless you're around or below 600 Verbal, don't waste your time/money. I had planned to really work on my writing sample, because I was really worried it was too much of a close reading and didn't have enough theory. I did read some theory I thought would be relevant and worked it in, though it wasn't quite the overhaul I expected (I travelled this summer and just didn't have the time - and I'm a high school English teacher). I think what I did manage to do, though, made it a stronger sample. I applied a litte more broadly, less married to the US News list (all my first-round schools were in the top 20, whereas this time they ranged from 1 to 50). I went for "fit" - which schools are strong in your subfield? I did my research in terms of fit this time, not just applying to schools and then scrounging up reasons (forcing faculty interest alignment, etc.), but really going through some schools I hadn't thought of before and looking closely. I ended up applying to half of the same schools, but I had half new, and one is an acceptance I am very seriously considering. Ask your advisors about what schools, based on your interests, they would recommend, and really look into it. I did contact people at my three top choices - so far, I'm waitlisted at one, rejected at another, and haven't heard from the third. So I'm not sure how important that is, except that at one of them (where I'm waitlisted), I've learned a lot about the program and had some lovely conversations, which is valuable in and of itself. Hope that helps - just a few basic things, I know. But really, it looks like your'e doing the right thing by seeking out people who have gained some insight! I hope it works out for you this round (there really is still hope!) but if not, good luck!!
  14. Ha, yes, exactly. It seems to me that literary scholars and novelists/poets don't tend to see eye-to-eye, at all. I mean, often the two groups approach literature in diametrically opposed ways. As for the Ivy-bashing, I haven't done it, but I think there is a perception, which is often borne out, that Ivies are can be elitist (not elite) in the sense that they look for pedigree above a lot of other more important considerations, and thus are quite insular. There's also a perception that they operate on cutthroat competition. Obviously those stereotypes aren't always true. I mean, three of my best friends went to Harvard, and obviously there are wonderful people at Ivies. But I will say that whenever I visited them, I was struck but the ratio of pretension and holier-than-thouness in some of their peers, compared to my own school, which was no slouch school itself (a top-5 SLAC). That said, a few jerks shouldn't spoil it for the whole system. But people are always going to push against what's held up as the pinnacle of anything, especially when everyone won't have equal access to them, or to the things their grads have access to.
  15. Tagging on to what Branwen and hadunc said, you seem to be under the impression that when you write a paper on a book, it is devoid of any sort of theoretical bent. You also say you want to write what's "true" about a work. But how do you decide what's true? You do it based on certain theoretical assumptions (a methodology), whether you're aware of them or not. At the undergrad level, you don't really have to have a full comprehension of those assumptions, but at the grad level, and certainly as an academic, you're expected to be aware of the framework you're using, the implications of that framework, and use that methodology self-consciously. Your response sort of lumps together the work being done as "contemporary," and imply that everyone is sort of conforming to what's trendy, but there are a myriad of different frameworks and methodologies people are working with. And everyone is trying to do something unique! So no, you wouldn't get arrested for doing something different, but you also won't get hired (or published) if you're completely unaware of what framework you're using. As a concrete example, say you write about the theme of black and white in Heart of Darkness. In high-level work you can't stop at a basic close reading of how Conrad uses black and white - that's the first step, but you have to say why it matters, what you're saying about that fact. Are you saying it reflects certain racial constructs? Then you should really be aware of postcolonial and racial theory. Are you saying his dichotomies bleed into each other and reverse, undermining the concept of perceptual and linguistic dichotomy? You'd better know something about structuralist and post-structuralist theory. In both cases, you also ought to be aware of what others have said about the issue. Obviously a simplistic example, but you get the idea. I know you're using conferences just as an example, but I still find it troubling that you seem to be uninterested in different perspectives on literature. I mean, that's what studying literature is. You use Derrida and Foucault as examples of people that wouldn't have been criticized for not going to conferences, but those were people EXTREMELY aware of the intellectual legacy they came out of and were then pushing against, and they couldn't have done the work they did without understanding what others were saying and had said, which is basically what conferences (and grad schools/criticism/theory!) are about. But you can't break the rules if you don't know them. If you're not interested in what others have to say about literature, why should anyone be interested in what you have to say? I can't believe I'm about to post this, because I do think the guy who wrote it is basically a jerk, but I am nevertheless glad I read it. I think his conclusions are totally extreme, but his premises are true. Grad school, especially a Ph.D. program, isn't something you give a try just because you were good at English and liked it in undergrad, because it is a huge risk. I mean, I would say a whole lot of us were "department darlings" in undergrad, and probably a good majority of English Ph.D. applicants were straight-A English students (or close), but nevertheless there's still a 2-10% acceptance rate at most of these programs, even with an almost laughably impressive applicant pool. So that's not the criteria anyone should used to decide to do it. What you do in undergrad is not the same as what you do in grad school/academia. Especially if you're not particularly interested in publishing scholarly articles, it'll be basically impossible to find TT jobs on the other end. I'm not saying I agree with this dude, because I don't (obviously - I'm single, not wealthy, and not well-connected, yet I'm going to grad school in the humanities), but I do think it's important to be aware of what you're getting yourself into: http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the-Huma/44846/ It's a scary article, but I figure if grad school is really the right decision for you, this won't scare you off, and you know the risks going in. Also, don't knock high school teaching! There are lots of truly wonderful (usually private) schools where you'd be working with very high-level students of literature - some of my students inspire and astound me, and make me think, every day. And those schools are always looking for smart, passionate people like yourself. It's not a lesser job or a less respectable way to make a living; it's just different. At the university level, though, you're expected to be a scholar as well, to engage with your fellow scholars' ideas and not just your own. Ask yourself if you want to do that. If you don't, don't do a Ph.D. with the goal of being a prof. Jobs are scarce and if you're not really committed to scholarship, you're setting yourself up for real unhappiness.
  16. The posters above have covered a lot of my reaction to this, but I just wanted to add: if you want to go to grad school, particularly a Ph.D. program, it is for the study of literature - meaning the research aspect, the "writing and talking about it," the part you seem to think is "boring and petty." There's nothing wrong with not enjoying literary criticism (though I'd probably avoid denigrating it to a board full of people willing to give up reasonable future job security and live in abject poverty in order to practice it!), but understand that that is what Ph.D. programs are all about: training you to be a literary critic. Tham means inserting yourself into certain discourses. You say that doing research is somewhat egotistical, and I won't argue that some academics have egos to rival Kanye West's, but you can view it the opposite way: not engaging with others' ideas means you're only interested in your own reactions to literature instead of others! I don't know if that's really fair, but my point is that research isn't necessarily out of a solipsistic impulse, but can - should! - also come out of an impulse to understand. It sounds like you are more interested in the teaching aspect of it, but that's only a part of what being an academic is about. I currently teach 12th grade English at a small, rigorous private school where I have pretty much total freedom over what I teach and really bright, motivated students. It totally fulfills the "communicating that love and understanding of literature to others" thing that you mention as criteria for a student and teacher of literature. I love it. But if were satisfied with that, I'd just stay here and maybe work on my M.A. during the summers. Lots of my incredibly brilliant colleagues do/did that and are immensely satisfied and fulfilled. But I miss research - I miss engaging with other people's ideas about literature, having a community of scholars to help bring me to new intellectual heights and provide different perspectives on the works and ideas I love; I miss having my own projects, the thrill of discovery that comes along with that. That's why I'm going to grad school. If you don't have that drive and desire, I would say this route isn't for you. It's a pretty scary route, in general. I do think you have to love literature, but almost even more so you have to also really love the study of literature, as that's what you'll be doing. Don't spend seven years of your life doing something you consider boring and petty (especially when there are others who live for those things)!
  17. My top choice, too - though I know the odds are crazy. Massive congratulations to those who got a call! Any info about the time of the call, or anything else they told you would of course be welcome. Although I would've been a blubbering mess, so totally understandable if you didn't manage to hear anything.
  18. This week has been a giant tease - the results board is bing-bing-binging away, but somehow I seem to have applied to all the schools that notify late! I do have 4 responses of 12 (plus one implied rejection), but I just didn't expect to go into the last week of February waiting to hear from over half of my schools. And I do think it's harder once the ball starts rolling - puts you in a constant state of expectation. Next week has got to be The Week. We're so close!
  19. I was going to ask about this, too. I think they are doing notifications in rounds, possibly by field. So I'd be really very curious to know the field of both acceptees and those rejected, if possible! I'm currently in Austin visiting a friend and was really hoping I'd know by the time I left, but alas! not meant to be. Still, the deets from those who do know would be welcome and appreciated! (And congrats to the acceptances! Austin is a lovely, fun city.)
  20. Ah! I'm out of town for the weekend so can't get the package until Sunday but I'm dying to know the financial basics - I've heard scary rumors. Anyone feel comfortable sharing info about stipend amount? TAships? Funding the first year? How many years guaranteed? Insurance? Are they paying for the visiting weekend? Feel free to PM me if you're not comfortable sharing on a public forum. I'd really appreciate it!
  21. Yeah, I think it's possible to see it that way, and likely is, which is how I treated it - but it's also possible to read it otherwise. I won't judge in this case, since it's over the internet and impossible to judge tone. But in general it does happen too often, and disproportionately with English. It's fine, but wouldn't it be nice not having to constantly justify the validity of what I want to do with my life?!
  22. Ha, YES. I think that means you win, glasses. That patience comes with gritted teeth. The frequency with which literary PhDs are asked to justify the seriousness of the discipline is off-putting...and really, I feel like asking the question in the first place probably means you've already decided about it. Which is, of course, ridiculous. Why is it that so many people think it's appropriate to de-legitimize an entire discipline? But whatever, I like talking about it, obviously it is worthwhile, so I do indulge it, foolish or not.
  23. We're not "English majors" at the Ph.D. level. Of course we have research interests! Just like any other discipline in the humanities. Generally, you have a time period, a methodology, and a set of questions you're interested in. For example, my major interests are in spatial theory and ecocriticism - so I'd examine how literary texts reflect and offer insight into how people relate to their environments. I'm particularly interested in the 20th century, and in the shifts that happened in terms of sense of place and relationship to environment and space. I'm interested in how conditions of modernity, which generally claimed to sever people from their environments (technology, rise of the city, increased interconnectedness and ease of travel, eventually leading up to globalization), as well as modern thought, interacted with Romantic ideas of landscape and place and growing scientific knowledge. All of that is reflected in the literature of the time - it would be my job to research where those things appear, explain how it does that, and how what I find reinforces or contradicts the current thinking/scholarship on the issue. But other people study representations of women, or of race; others study the rise of the use of metafictional devices, or print culture...the possibilities are endless! (Well, not quite, but broad!) Does that give you a better idea? I generally take any opportunity to explain what I want to do, so all I can say is, you asked for it! Plus, it helps me clarify for myself to articulate it in a condensed way.
  24. You missed JennyFieldsOriginal. Congrats to all of you!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use